Prophecy and the Ontology of History

[LightGrenade04]

DISCLAIMER: I sincerely hope that this thread can manage to avoid (entirely or at least in part) descending into the rabid, flailing, whirlwind of disoriented insults and mercurial accusations that normally characterizes discussion of this topic (or really any topic in religious debate). All I ask is that we attempt to think hypothetically or at the very least not to turn this thread into something it's not. Let this thread be bereft of accusations of textual distortion/manipulation/other forms of intellectual dishonesty directed at the NT authors (and the early Church in general), out-of-place philosophical musings about the impossibility of miracles, and (for the love of God) any and all convoluted laundry lists of messianic "prerequisites" (or outright denials of any messianic expectations within 2nd Temple Judaism) that have supposedly gone unchecked. Any and all such argumentations are, henceforth, inoperative for the purposes of this thread and their use by anyone would simply be an indication of having missed the point of this thread entirely. Anyway, on with it...

The use of prophecy as confirmation of Christ's messiahship has a long history in Christian theology, and it is the subject of this thread's question. However, the nature of this thread is not exegetical or historical, but theological and philosophical. Let's just assume, for a moment, that Christ did fulfill those messianic prophecies ascribed to Him. What does that mean, ontologically?

The question stems from an argument made by theologians such as (among others) Wolfhart Pannenberg, a Lutheran theologian who is considered by many to be one of the greatest of contemporary theologians. Pannenberg argues that since Christ is the center of history and, thus, gives meaning to all of history. Therefore, passages from the OT that refer to Christ do so because of Christ; not through any intrinsic predictive power they possess.

What do those of you who are interested in and familiar with systematic theology think of this idea?

[LightGrenade04]

Yes I am.
Even if there was a Jesus it does not mean the stories are not myth.

I can see little to no reason for thinking of them as such.

I can see how a Jesus as the Christ could evolve with out there having been a real person. It would be "Christ" or "Savior"(Jesus could just mean savior) Mythology taken stories from the OT Hebrew writings and the Mystery religions created in communities. I tend to think there was a Jesus, but little proof, and they did the same thing.

Indeed, it is in some sense broadly possible. The scarce evidence for its actual occurrence, however, has been overwhelmingly rejected by modern historians along with the idea that there is no sufficient evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

It doesn't really matter if he was real or not for Christianity to have some merit.
Christ myth theory does not dismiss Jesus it just tries to explain.

On some level I agree with you. However, whatever merit that it still possessed would be entirely confined to the realm of classical "timeless truths" and that sort of thing. It would cease to be a real religion that saves.

[Cathar1950]

Yes I am.
Even if there was a Jesus it does not mean the stories are not myth.

I can see little to no reason for thinking of them as such.

I can see how a Jesus as the Christ could evolve with out there having been a real person. It would be "Christ" or "Savior"(Jesus could just mean savior) Mythology taken stories from the OT Hebrew writings and the Mystery religions created in communities. I tend to think there was a Jesus, but little proof, and they did the same thing.

Indeed, it is in some sense broadly possible. The scarce evidence for its actual occurrence, however, has been overwhelmingly rejected by modern historians along with the idea that there is no sufficient evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

It doesn't really matter if he was real or not for Christianity to have some merit.
Christ myth theory does not dismiss Jesus it just tries to explain.

On some level I agree with you. However, whatever merit that it still possessed would be entirely confined to the realm of classical "timeless truths" and that sort of thing. It would cease to be a real religion that saves.

Salvation mythology might be a result of fail expectations and even misunderstandings. History before Jesus was full of saviors and heros. Some were even gods. Murduk was said to die and rise providing wellbeing and plenty. Kings were sacrificed and substitutes were often part of the sacrifice.
Today's myths may bring the end of our civilization due to self-fullfilling prophesies.
There is a large end-times industry that flurishes.